| To: | niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:36:34 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | anton@xxxxxxxxx, haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, hdierks@xxxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, milliner@xxxxxxxxxx, ricardoz@xxxxxxxxxx, twichell@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3EEAAFA6.9080609@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <20030613223841.GB32097@krispykreme> <20030613.154634.74748085.davem@redhat.com> <3EEAAFA6.9080609@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:16:22 -0700 Yep, but it really doesn't have too many options (sic pun ;)).. i.e. The max the options can add are 40 bytes, speaking strictly TCP, not IP. This really should fit into one extra cacheline for most architectures, at most, right? It's what the bottom of the header is aligned to, but we build the packet top to bottom not the other way around. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | RE: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Herman Dierks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |